|
|
Posted by Ed Mulroy on 06/08/06 21:42
I appreciate the link to that site. I know it is XHTML instead of HTML but
I should still be able to learn a lot from it. I also like the line:
BMW - cheaper than a psychiatrist!
Airplanes have the same calming advantages except that the bike actually IS
cheaper!
> ...It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect
> design across browsers, because the visitors will only ever
> visit with one...
Yes, but there may be other issues. An example, but not a significant one,
just one for both of which I recall the details of and which is easy to
describe.
Given this:
<a name="some_name">Description</a>
My style sheet has navy (#000080) text and a white background. For a:hover
an underline and light blue background color appear.
In IE "Description" always shows as navy text on white. In Firefox
"Description" is underlined when you hover. I use that construct for
titles, sub-headers separating logical groups. The underlining suggests to
the user that he can click on the title to go somewhere.
The Firefox behavior annoys me. You can say it doesn't matter but that's
only that it doesn't matter for you :-)
Therefore I use this rather ugly construct instead:
<a name="some_name"></a>Description
Note that the rental site pages I've mentioned don't have this.
> ... Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in
> the source, ...
Then I have "lucked out" as most of my pages have the menu after the content
merely because it was easier to work on the content with the menu below.
However the rental site does not. I'll change it.
If you are curious, the other, non rental pages are all listed in the site
map:
http://home.nc.rr.com/emulroy/sitemap.htm
.. Ed
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote in message
> news:TB%hg.151141$Fs1.141656@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ...
> It's not really necessary to attempt to achieve pixel-perfect design
> across browsers, because the visitors will only ever visit with one
> browser. Not like here among us developers and authors.
>
>> Looking at my site statistics right now shows IE at 80.0%, Firefox
>> at 14%, Opera 1.9% and Mozilla 1.5% (I take "Mozilla" to be Netscape).
>
> I would take "Mozilla" to be Mozilla.
>
> Your stats are pretty much what my sites see as well. However, I
> don't worry about what browser they bring, because my sites work
> in any browser, even those PDAs and cell phones and text browsers
> you mentioned, without any extra work. Even in Opera. :-)
>
> For example, this one is mine: http://countryrode.com/
>
> Note that there are <table>s, but only where there is actual tabular
> data, such as the vehicles for sale, the models available, the store
> hours...
>
> At least half of that site comes directly from a database. The Events
> page is a table - in the database - but is not displayed with <table>.
>
>> It might be worth only supporting only IE and Firefox (Opera users
>> tend to be techies and should be used to handling compatibility
>> problems).
>
> Again, it is actually easier to design for *no* browser, rather than
> try to design for one or two. I don't really know how to do that.
>
> Notice also that the menu code comes after the content in the source,
> thus letting the search engines see the page content first, rather than
> wading through the menu first on each page.
>
>>> <http://www.jindrak.com/>. :(
>>
>> I like the looks of that page. Very nice page.
>
> ..except tommy forgot to assign a background color to the pages, and I
> see my ugly default purple. <g> You have to be careful because not
> everyone will use white.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|